4 ms·

Maybe also losing 1.1 million people (according to the CDC's "excess deaths" website) wasn't that good for our economy either.

buscoquadnary 5y ago
Actually as callous as it sounds extra deaths are good for the economy. More dead people means fewer competitors for all resources except labor. What that means is fewer people need stuff and there are fewer people to make stuff, so the stuff the dead people had is easy to obtain for the living while employers have to pay more for labor because there is less of it. As evidence the black plague was considered one of the major events that ended the dark ages and the oppressions (relatively speaking) of the peasant class. Suddenly lord's needed to start giving their peasants rights and things to do or risk losing them to a lord that would give them those things. It's horrible and callous but it is also a fact, especially when you consider many of those deaths were not among the most productive segments of society.
- muh_gradle 5y ago
  This sounds almost like some version of the broken window fallacy. But there is no way that ~1 million dead Americans from COVID has helped this country economically. Supply chains have been hurt by COVID. Hospitalizations means unproductive workers. Deaths means unproductive workers. We are not thriving at all right now.
  - beamatronic 5y ago
    Many tech workers were thriving (making and spending money) until their RSU’s crashed 75% or more
  - imtringued 5y ago
    That's the broken window fallacy. Abundant capital must be destroyed. In this case the abundant capital is people.
- johnsimer 5y ago
  A reduction in people in the economy is good for some subsegments but for the economy as a whole, no Think about the networks effects of an economy. An economy of one person has a size of zero units. An economy of two people has a size of one unit, an economy of n people has a max size of n^2 units, or more really nlogn, when you take into account the Gaussian distribution of value between each node of the network.
- wcfields 5y ago
  > fewer people need stuff and there are fewer people to make stuff But, that's the whole gist of our economy: lots of people needing stuff (consumers) and lots people making stuff (labor).
omginternets 5y ago
I really don’t want to sound calloused because caring for the weak and the elderly is a pillar of civilizations, but my impression was that the bulk of “excess deaths” were not among the most economically active populations. I could just as easily see this having the opposite economic effect: reducing the burden on the state for such things as retirement and Medicaid.
- inglor_cz 5y ago
  This. Economic consequences do not necessarily track our moral preferences.
- watwut 5y ago
  The excess death were among active demographics too. And in addition, the long term covid was affecting active demographics too. And also, the parents who had to drop out of workforce due to childcare being much more difficult were also active demographic too.
  - omginternets 5y ago
    >The excess death were among active demographics too. In what proportion?
- AYBABTME 5y ago
  > caring for the weak and the elderly is a pillar of civilizations I'm not sure that's true. Many civilizations, up to and including now, have the cultural practice of the weak and elderly destroying themselves (or being destroyed) when they become a burden on their relative/society. The most obvious example being the concept of east asian (Korean/Japanese) elders "going to the mountain to die".
  - omginternets 5y ago
    This is absurd. Eastern civilizations most certainly care for their weak, sick and elderly. Removing oneself from society by going up the proverbial mountain does not contradict this. You have to look very hard for a successful civilization that doesn't do this. Sparta, perhaps? (This is also not really the point of the original comment.)

buscoquadnary 5y ago

Actually as callous as it sounds extra deaths are good for the economy. More dead people means fewer competitors for all resources except labor. What that means is fewer people need stuff and there are fewer people to make stuff, so the stuff the dead people had is easy to obtain for the living while employers have to pay more for labor because there is less of it. As evidence the black plague was considered one of the major events that ended the dark ages and the oppressions (relatively speaking) of the peasant class. Suddenly lord's needed to start giving their peasants rights and things to do or risk losing them to a lord that would give them those things. It's horrible and callous but it is also a fact, especially when you consider many of those deaths were not among the most productive segments of society.

muh_gradle 5y ago
This sounds almost like some version of the broken window fallacy. But there is no way that ~1 million dead Americans from COVID has helped this country economically. Supply chains have been hurt by COVID. Hospitalizations means unproductive workers. Deaths means unproductive workers. We are not thriving at all right now.
- beamatronic 5y ago
  Many tech workers were thriving (making and spending money) until their RSU’s crashed 75% or more
- imtringued 5y ago
  That's the broken window fallacy. Abundant capital must be destroyed. In this case the abundant capital is people.
johnsimer 5y ago
A reduction in people in the economy is good for some subsegments but for the economy as a whole, no Think about the networks effects of an economy. An economy of one person has a size of zero units. An economy of two people has a size of one unit, an economy of n people has a max size of n^2 units, or more really nlogn, when you take into account the Gaussian distribution of value between each node of the network.
wcfields 5y ago
> fewer people need stuff and there are fewer people to make stuff But, that's the whole gist of our economy: lots of people needing stuff (consumers) and lots people making stuff (labor).

omginternets 5y ago

I really don’t want to sound calloused because caring for the weak and the elderly is a pillar of civilizations, but my impression was that the bulk of “excess deaths” were not among the most economically active populations. I could just as easily see this having the opposite economic effect: reducing the burden on the state for such things as retirement and Medicaid.

inglor_cz 5y ago
This. Economic consequences do not necessarily track our moral preferences.
watwut 5y ago
The excess death were among active demographics too. And in addition, the long term covid was affecting active demographics too. And also, the parents who had to drop out of workforce due to childcare being much more difficult were also active demographic too.
- omginternets 5y ago
  >The excess death were among active demographics too. In what proportion?
AYBABTME 5y ago
> caring for the weak and the elderly is a pillar of civilizations I'm not sure that's true. Many civilizations, up to and including now, have the cultural practice of the weak and elderly destroying themselves (or being destroyed) when they become a burden on their relative/society. The most obvious example being the concept of east asian (Korean/Japanese) elders "going to the mountain to die".
- omginternets 5y ago
  This is absurd. Eastern civilizations most certainly care for their weak, sick and elderly. Removing oneself from society by going up the proverbial mountain does not contradict this. You have to look very hard for a successful civilization that doesn't do this. Sparta, perhaps? (This is also not really the point of the original comment.)